samson isucha ngwalida others vs stanslaus masunga nkola others 2023 tzca 17282 26 may 2023

samson isucha ngwalida others vs stanslaus masunga nkola others 2023 tzca 17282 26 may 2023

The application is incompetent because it is not supported by an affidavit from the 5th applicant, nor did any applicant swear an affidavit on behalf of the 5th applicant, as required by law.

Citation
samson isucha ngwalida others vs stanslaus masunga nkola others 2023 tzca 17282 26 may 2023
Parties
Applicant: Samson Isucha N Gwalida; Applicant: Bwawesh Chandulal Gandecha; Applicant: Ashvin Keshavbhai Patel; Applicant: Parul Bhavesh Gandecha; Applicant: Nyarugusu Mine Limited; Respondent: Stanslaus Masunga Nkola; Respondent: Benjamin Joseph Nchore; Respondent: Maduhu Mulola Nkinda
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
26 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Application for Extension of Time to File Revision
Outcome
Application struck out with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Affidavit Requirements, Preliminary Objection, Revision Vs. Appeal
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Affidavit Requirements Preliminary Objection Revision Vs. Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samson Isucha N Gwalida

Applicant

Bwawesh Chandulal Gandecha

Applicant

Ashvin Keshavbhai Patel

Applicant

Parul Bhavesh Gandecha

Applicant

Nyarugusu Mine Limited

Applicant

Stanslaus Masunga Nkola

Respondent

Benjamin Joseph Nchore

Respondent

Maduhu Mulola Nkinda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Application for Extension of Time to File Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for extension of time is competent in absence of affidavits from all applicants, particularly the 5th applicant
  2. 2 Whether the 5th applicant is entitled to seek revision or should have appealed
  3. 3 Whether the misspelling of the 2nd applicant's name in the affidavit is fatal to the application

Ratio Decidendi

The application is incompetent because it is not supported by an affidavit from the 5th applicant, nor did any applicant swear an affidavit on behalf of the 5th applicant, as required by law.

Court Disposition

Application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The application is struck out with costs